Inspired at least in part by the recent Kim Davis nonsense, an excellent article by Lawrence Krauss in the New Yorker:

Quote

The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals. Laws should not be enacted whose sole purpose is to denigrate them, but, by the same token, the law shouldnít elevate them, either.

In science, of course, the very word 'sacred' is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise. "My practice as a scientist is atheistic," the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote in 1934. "That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." Itís ironic, really, that so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isnít one.

Because science holds that no idea is sacred, itís inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems. Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world. Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that todayís discoveries exist in easy harmony with preŽxisting religious doctrines, or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine. Itís a strange inconsistency, since scientists often happily disagree with other kinds of beliefs. Astronomers have no problem ridiculing the claims of astrologists, even though a significant fraction of the public believes these claims. Doctors have no problem condemning the actions of anti-vaccine activists who endanger children. And yet, for reasons of decorum, many scientists worry that ridiculing certain religious claims alienates the public from science. When they do so, they are being condescending at best and hypocritical at worst.

Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.

If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.

Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.

Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment, he also assumes that this is proven by the degree of success (and he doesn't express precisely what success he is referring to) he has achieved.

This quote seems to be a central plank of Krauss's article, so I would suggest that it falls down on this point.

Furthermore, the comment that Krauss makes, that "The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems" doesn't appear to be as widely held as he makes out, even within the scientific community.

Finally, it is interesting that Krauss picks on the period of 500 years. That of course would put us back to circa 1600. We all know that science had been in existence for centuries before that, and that many of the so-called discoveries on the first 200 or so of those years were simply re-discoveries of stuff that had been discovered in Ancient China and other parts of the Ancient world.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 06:47:41 PM by Hope »

Logged

Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career."

Not while they're doing science.

Quote

One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.

Testament to the incredible power of doublethink that some people have.

Quote

This quote seems to be a central plank of Krauss's article, so I would suggest that it falls down on this point.

It isn't a central plank of Krauss's article, which is much, much longer than the few bits I've quoted, but it's a central plank of proper science. It is however a quote I've employed myself several times in the past, for good reason.

Quote

Furthermore, the comment that Krauss makes, that "The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems" doesn't appear to be as widely held as he makes out, even within the scientific community.

He's echoing - probably consciously - Steven Weinberg's famous quote: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." Conscious or not, it doesn't matter whether it's widely held or not. Science isn't a democracy.

Quote

Finally, it is interesting that Krauss picks on the period of 500 years. That of course would put us back to circa 1600. We all know that science had been in existence for centuries before that, and that many of the so-called discoveries on the first 200 or so of those years were simply re-discoveries of stuff that had been discovered in Ancient China and other parts of the Ancient world.

He probably picked 500 years because that's roughly speaking when the scientific method - not science generally - began to emerge bit by bit, this being the most powerful and accurate tool we have for understanding reality. The discoveries of the ancient world to which you allude didn't come about via the scientific method as we now know it. Observation, certainly. Experiment, only sometimes if the means were available. Anonymous peer review, no. To pick just one example, the ancient Greeks' theories of atomism were exercises in pure armchair rationalism, not experimental science. We know they were right but they were right as it were accidentally; they didn't know they were right and couldn't prove it because they didn't have the means to demonstrate it.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 11:36:08 PM by Shaker »

Logged

Why did the blind man fall into the well? Because he couldn't see that well.

Many people would suggest that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, JC, but I suspect that wouldn't stop you. You might disagree with Shaker, you might even be able to put some sort of an argument together as Hope has done (I disagree with him, but it's an argument that's been constructed with some thought behind it.)

Many people would suggest that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, JC, but I suspect that wouldn't stop you. You might disagree with Shaker, you might even be able to put some sort of an argument together as Hope has done (I disagree with him, but it's an argument that's been constructed with some thought behind it.)

JC doesn't construct arguments, big O, preferring instead merely to do with words what chimpanzees do with their own excrement, and with much the same result.

Logged

Why did the blind man fall into the well? Because he couldn't see that well.

Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.

They can, but as scientists they're being disengenuous if they suggest that there's any reason to think that's the case. I'm not suggesting that they do, I suspect the overwhelming majority of them divorce their professional activities from the religious ones, and the ones that don't end up with the sort of tortured desperation that we see from 'Creation Scientists' and the like.

The reality is that their scientific endeavours might well sit within a created framework, or they might sit within a purely naturalistic framework, but scientifically they cannot tell and should (and probably do) construct their experiments in such a way that it makes no difference.

Of course, this is presuming they aren't the sort of idiot that tries to adhere to Biblical inerrancy.

Quote

Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment, he also assumes that this is proven by the degree of success (and he doesn't express precisely what success he is referring to) he has achieved.

No, he suggests that he sets his experiments up on the presumption isn't going to intervene as it would render the endeavour meaningless. That, in itself, is not a implication that something supernatural would interfere, just that as a believer he'd otherwise accept that it's a possibility - indeed, as a Christian his religion is founded upon the concept.

His 'degree of success' is that there is consistency between his experiments, which implies that no outside influence is disrupting the natural flow of cause and effect; of course, it fails to disprove the idea that malicious entity is deliberately mimicking cause and effect by supernatural means.

Quote

This quote seems to be a central plank of Krauss's article, so I would suggest that it falls down on this point.

That's not what I took to be the central element, but then we are different people with differing viewpoints.

Quote

Furthermore, the comment that Krauss makes, that "The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems" doesn't appear to be as widely held as he makes out, even within the scientific community.

I'd suggest it describes the scientific community and the body of scientific evidence pretty well, actually.

Quote

Finally, it is interesting that Krauss picks on the period of 500 years. That of course would put us back to circa 1600. We all know that science had been in existence for centuries before that, and that many of the so-called discoveries on the first 200 or so of those years were simply re-discoveries of stuff that had been discovered in Ancient China and other parts of the Ancient world.

Not really - he's a westerner, and the history of the Western world pitches the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, hence the birth of the modern scientific endeavour, as happening from then.

Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career."

Shker, I would suspect that many scientists who are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or having any other faith would disagree with the comment that Haldane is quoted as making: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." One can quite easily assume that 'no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with (an experiment's) course' yet still hold the belief that the experiment couldn't take place without the creation - by a God or gods - of the very elements with which the experiment is taking place.

Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment,

Umm, I can't believe you have pasted JBS Haldane's quote into your post and you still make that claim.

Haldane explicitly states the opposite of what you say he implies. Why don't you try a bit of intellectual honesty for a change?

How does Krauss (The science of Star Trek) hope to measure militant atheism?Will it be the militancy?....or the atheism.Perhaps I can help him out here.......How about Temporal Lobe sensitivity?In this scenario, the Militant atheist with the lowest midichlorian count gets to be YODA!!!!!! Yeaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!

How does Krauss (The science of Star Trek) hope to measure militant atheism?Will it be the militancy?....or the atheism.

Krauss is being ironic - is there such a thing as low irony sensitivity, I wonder ... it looks like it. The very first paragraph of the article runs:

Quote

As a physicist, I do a lot of writing and public speaking about the remarkable nature of our cosmos, primarily because I think science is a key part of our cultural heritage and needs to be shared more broadly. Sometimes, I refer to the fact that religion and science are often in conflict; from time to time, I ridicule religious dogma. When I do, I sometimes get accused in public of being a "militant atheist."

In other words LK is saying that he is regarded as a "militant atheist" merely for having the temerity to criticise and ridicule religion. In still other words, he must have met you.

Quote

Perhaps I can help him out here.......How about Temporal Lobe sensitivity?In this scenario, the Militant atheist with the lowest midichlorian count gets to be YODA!!!!!! Yeaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!

Have you been on the glue again?

Logged

Why did the blind man fall into the well? Because he couldn't see that well.

So are you telling us that you reject the title of your thread Shakey? Seems hard to believe you have a problem with it, I mean you never pass up an opportunity to oppose around here. You made no objection to the article in your OP.

Mr Out,Well it would help if Shaker would actually make and argument for or against his title thread. You note he didn't bother to put anything forward but some other persons BS. I am against Shakers stupid title thread as would be most scientists. Shaker doesn't want to admit anything so far Mr. Out.

So are you telling us that you reject the title of your thread Shakey? Seems hard to believe you have a problem with it, I mean you never pass up an opportunity to oppose around here. You made no objection to the article in your OP.

See #14 and all should become clear. The "militant atheist" nonsense is being used ironically by Krauss because it's a description often bandied about by unoriginal, usually not tremendously intelligent people to refer to anyone who merely criticises religion, which Krauss does regularly and well. People who have been used to unearned privilege for a very long time are in the habit of setting the bar for the militancy of their ideological opponents very low indeed; thus while Islamic militants behead people, maim, rape, torture and kill - which seems appropriately militant to me -, to some people all you need to do to acquire the "militant atheist" tag is to write books saying disobliging things about religion. So it goes.

Quote

Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.

If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.

Why not, Shakes? If, as I said, a person believes that everything that makes up the material of scientific investigation was purposefully created rather than accidentally evolving how does that compromise said science?

Quote

Testament to the incredible power of doublethink that some people have.

Not at all; testament, instead, to a belief that everything was purposely created.

Quote

It isn't a central plank of Krauss's article, which is much, much longer than the few bits I've quoted, ...

As there was no indication that this was a patchwork of bits taken from a larger article, I assumed that the reference at the bottom was simply that.. In future, if you're going to stitch together extracts from a larger piece, could you please indicate this within the material. After all, no honest scientist would have done what you have done. ;-) (I would put a proper smiley in here, but the new MS Edge browser doesn't seem to want to allow smileys)

Quote

... but it's a central plank of proper science.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is it simply an opinion held by some?

Quote

Science isn't a democracy.

What I said has nothing to do with democracy. The good thing with science, as with many other parts of life, is that one isn't required to believe that what one or a number of other people say is true - at least until one has investigated their claims and found them to be so. That is why scientists don't always agree with each other, and it would be the weaker if they did.

Quote

He probably picked 500 years because that's roughly speaking when the scientific method - not science generally - began to emerge bit by bit, this being the most powerful and accurate tool we have for understanding reality. The discoveries of the ancient world to which you allude didn't come about via the scientific method as we now know it. Observation, certainly. Experiment, only sometimes if the means were available. Anonymous peer review, no. To pick just one example, the ancient Greeks' theories of atomism were exercises in pure armchair rationalism, not experimental science. We know they were right but they were right as it were accidentally; they didn't know they were right and couldn't prove it because they didn't have the means to demonstrate it.

I'm aware of this, Shaker, which is why I pointed it out. We in the West like to think that we discovered the 'scientific method' as you call it, despite the evidence there is that to suggest that it was 'discovered' long before the BC/AD split in what we now regard as the Far East. I notice that you had to refer to a Western example, as if the West is the marker for all such things. Without the basis of discoveries made pre-17th century, both in pure science and mathematics, we wouldn't be where we are.

Logged

Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

but scientifically they cannot tell and should (and probably do) construct their experiments in such a way that it makes no difference.

Precisely, O. It seems to be the likes of Shakes who believe that there should be some sort of difference of approach.

Quote

Of course, this is presuming they aren't the sort of idiot that tries to adhere to Biblical inerrancy.

I would only partially agree; Biblical inerrancy can result in creationism (which I don't adhere to) or it can result in modern scientific thought. I realise that many assume it is the former, but that assumes that the inerrancy is in the wording and that the Bible was written in genres that are purely literal. We all know that this is not the case, as the Bible is made up of poetry and prophecy (rarely literal in nature), parable and analogy, and history that is specifically the history of a given people group and not really that of the surrounding population.

Quote

Not only does Haldane erroneously imply that a supernatural being is necessarily going to intervene in anything like an experiment, he also assumes that this is proven by the degree of success (and he doesn't express precisely what success he is referring to) he has achieved.

Quote

No, he suggests that he sets his experiments up on the presumption isn't going to intervene as it would render the endeavour meaningless. That, in itself, is not a implication that something supernatural would interfere, just that as a believer he'd otherwise accept that it's a possibility - indeed, as a Christian his religion is founded upon the concept.

Why would a religious scientist accept that there was a possibility that something supernatural was going to interfere? Interestingly, as a Christian, their religion is founded upon the idea that God intervenes, in a way such as Christ's birth and resurrection on rare occasions but that he intervenes regularly through the human practise of skills and mental processes he has provided us with. That is very different to your blanket generalisation.

Quote

That's not what I took to be the central element, but then we are different people with differing viewpoints.

If Shaker's recent post, it seems that the 'article' quoted in the OP isn't actually an article at all, but a stitching together of parts of a larger one.

Logged

Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

I would only partially agree; Biblical inerrancy can result in creationism (which I don't adhere to) or it can result in modern scientific thought. I realise that many assume it is the former, but that assumes that the inerrancy is in the wording and that the Bible was written in genres that are purely literal. We all know that this is not the case, as the Bible is made up of poetry and prophecy (rarely literal in nature), parable and analogy, and history that is specifically the history of a given people group and not really that of the surrounding population ... Why would a religious scientist accept that there was a possibility that something supernatural was going to interfere? Interestingly, as a Christian, their religion is founded upon the idea that God intervenes, in a way such as Christ's birth and resurrection on rare occasions but that he intervenes regularly through the human practise of skills and mental processes he has provided us with. That is very different to your blanket generalisation.

According to the first part of this - Biblical inerrancy - you've had any number of instances of the Christian God influencing reality - from light shows for Saul on the Damascus road, voices from the burning bush for Abraham, through Jesus' various miracles and onwards. Coupled with the long history of claims of 'miracles' outside of scripture, theistic scientists have to set their work up in the assumption that a deity isn't going to interfere - that's not implying a presumption on their part that it would interfere, just the process of science has to continue as though it doesn't. This is, I think, the point that Shaker is trying to make when he says that Christian scientists have to 'put aside' their faith whilst they do their work.

Why not, Shakes? If, as I said, a person believes that everything that makes up the material of scientific investigation was purposefully created rather than accidentally evolving how does that compromise said science?

Science is methodologically naturalistic, which is practically and functionally equivalent to atheistic. That is to say, whatever beliefs about gods a scientist may hold at other times, when doing science properly there must be an assumption of naturalism/atheism. Haldane explained why so I shouldn't need to go over that again. Given that science is the endeavour to find out accurate and reliable knowledge (scientia, from scire, 'to know' and not credere, to believe) of the way the world is, to infest scientific practice with the belief that everything was purposefully created by a poorly defined (if that) entity doing unknown things by unknown means is to prostitute science. That may be one's belief, but that's all it is - just a belief, with nothing whatever to support it. It has no place in science.

Haldane was an atheist, by the way, and not as he has been referred to here a religious scientist. The well-known quote about experimentation continues: "... such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." Exactly so. This is why the majority of scientists are nonbelievers - because they don't compartmentalise and don't flip-flop back and forth between a scientific view of the world and a non-scientific one, which a religious scientist is bound to do.

Quote

Not at all; testament, instead, to a belief that everything was purposely created.

Which is, as I said, doublethink for a scientist.

Quote

As there was no indication that this was a patchwork of bits taken from a larger article, I assumed that the reference at the bottom was simply that.. In future, if you're going to stitch together extracts from a larger piece, could you please indicate this within the material.

I don't need to. If you'd followed the link you would have found this out for yourself. I'm not here to spoonfeed you. Do your own work.

Quote

After all, no honest scientist would have done what you have done.

I'm not a scientist.

Quote

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Apart from the fact that it's a nigh-universally acknowledged facet of the proper scientific working method for centuries, you mean?

Quote

What I said has nothing to do with democracy. The good thing with science, as with many other parts of life, is that one isn't required to believe that what one or a number of other people say is true - at least until one has investigated their claims and found them to be so. That is why scientists don't always agree with each other, and it would be the weaker if they did.

Just one of the good things about science is that while nice ideas are nice, everything stands or falls on the strength of the evidence.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2015, 11:46:31 AM by Shaker »

Logged

Why did the blind man fall into the well? Because he couldn't see that well.

Just as a aside, science should be for the masses, not just the privileged few, it needs to step out if its lofty towers and reach to the ordinary man in the street.

Science is seen by many as old and dusty, just like religion, it belongs to them that have a mind for it, but we should all have a mind for it.

It has to lose its geekiness, stop flowering it with Latin names, make it approachable for all, stop telling the less educated that they won't understand, scientists have a job to make us all understand.

At the end of his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking talks about the grand theory of everything, he says it should be understood by all, butcher, baker, candle stick maker.

I don't give a flying spaghetti monster if it is atheistic, I want the facts, understandable facts, so that we can all join in.

I am not descended from a monkey, I am descended from a monkey like creature.